63 G.R. No. 110398 November 7, 1997 2. Whether the award for damages in Mecenas v.
Court of Appeals is applicable
NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO and
VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA, respondents.
Facts:
Private respondent Ramon Miranda purchased from the Negros Navigation Co.,
Inc. four special cabin tickets. The tickets were for Voyage No. 457-A of the M/V
Don Juan, leaving Manila and going to Bacolod.
Subsequently, the Don Juan collided off the Tablas Strait in Mindoro, with the M/T
Tacloban City, an oil tanker owned by the Philippine National Oil Company
(PNOC) and the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC). As a
result, the M/V Don Juan sank. Several of her passengers perished in the sea
tragedy. The bodies of some of the victims were found and brought to shore, but
the four members of private respondents families were never found.
Private respondents filed a complaint against the Negros Navigation, the
Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), and the PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation (PNOC/STC), seeking damages for the death. Petitioner, however,
denied that the four relatives of private respondents actually boarded the vessel
as shown by the fact that their bodies were never recovered. Petitioner further
averred that the Don Juan was seaworthy and manned by a full and competent
crew, and that the collision was entirely due to the fault of the crew of the M/T
Tacloban City.
In finding petitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise the
extraordinary diligence required of it in the carriage of passengers, both the trial
court and the appellate court relied on the findings of this Court in Mecenas v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, which case was brought for the death of other
passengers. In Mecenas, SC found petitioner guilty of negligence in (1) allowing
or tolerating the ship captain and crew members in playing mahjong during the
voyage, (2) in failing to maintain the vessel seaworthy and (3) in allowing the ship
to carry more passengers than it was allowed to carry. Petitioner is, therefore,
clearly liable for damages to the full extent.
Petitioner criticizes the lower courts reliance on the Mecenas case, arguing that,
although this case arose out of the same incident as that involved in Mecenas,
the parties are different and trial was conducted separately. Petitioner contends
that the decision in this case should be based on the allegations and defenses
pleaded and evidence adduced in it or, in short, on the record of this case.
Issues:
1. Whether the ruling in Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, finding the crew members
of petitioner to be grossly negligent in the performance of their duties, is binding
in this case;
in this case.
3. Whether MV DonJuan is seaworthy
Held:
1. No. The contention is without merit.Adherence to the Mecenas case is dictated
by this Courts policy of maintaining stability in jurisprudence. Where, as in this
case, the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by
parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a
competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the
same issue.
2. No, it is not applicable.The doctrine of stare decisis works as a bar only
against issues litigated in a previous case. Where the issue involved was not
raised nor presented to the court and not passed upon by the court in the
previous case, the decision in the previous case is not stare decisis of the
question presently presented. The Mecenas case cannot be made the basis for
determining the award for attorneys fees. The award would naturally vary or
differ in each case.
3. No. In finding petitioner guilty of negligence and in failing to exercise the
extraordinary diligence required of it in the carriage of passengers, both the trial
court and the appellate court relied on the findings of this Court in Mecenas v.
Intermediate Appellate Court,which case was brought for the death of other
passengers. In that case it was found that although the proximate cause of the
mishap was the negligence of the crew of the M/T Tacloban City, the crew of the
Don Juan was equally negligent as it found that the latters master, Capt. Rogelio
Santisteban, was playing mahjong at the time of collision, and the officer on
watch, Senior Third Mate Rogelio De Vera, admitted that he failed to call the
attention of Santisteban to the imminent danger facing them. This Court found
that Capt. Santisteban and the crew of the M/V Don Juan failed to take steps to
prevent the collision or at least delay the sinking of the ship and supervise the
abandoning of the ship.
Petitioner Negros Navigation was found equally negligent in tolerating the
playing of mahjong by the ship captain and other crew members while on
board the ship and failing to keep the M/V Don Juan seaworthy so much so
that the ship sank within 10 to 15 minutes of its impact with the M/T
Tacloban City.
In addition, the Court found that the Don Juan was overloaded. The Certificate of
Inspection, dated August 27, 1979, issued by the Philippine Coast Guard
Commander at Iloilo City stated that the total number of persons allowed on the
ship was 864, of whom 810 are passengers, but there were actually 1,004 on
board the vessel when it sank, 140 persons more than the maximum number that
could be safely carried by it.
Taking these circumstances together, and the fact that the M/V Don Juan, as the
faster and better-equipped vessel, could have avoided a collision with the PNOC
tanker, this Court held that even if the Tacloban City had been at fault for failing
to observe an internationally-recognized rule of navigation, the Don Juan was
guilty of contributory negligenc

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with

modification and petitioner is ORDERED to pay private respondents damages.